If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

January 18, 2024

v No. 364310

Van Buren Circuit Court

CORDIS ELMER DECKER, LC No. 2021-023467-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and MARKEY and CAMERON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals by right his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), 

MCL 750.520b(2)(b). The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender, 

MCL 769.12, to 25 to 40 years’ incarceration. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises from the sexual assault of an 11-year-old victim, JM. JM is the daughter 

of defendant’s girlfriend. At trial the prosecution moved in limine to exclude the testimony of an 

investigator from Child Protective Services (CPS) and to exclude all evidence regarding the 

conclusion of the CPS investigation. The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to exclude,

and the investigator did not testify at trial. Ultimately, the jury convicted defendant, and the trial 

court sentenced defendant as indicated. This appeal followed.

II. CPS INVESTIGATION

Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the investigator’s 

testimony at trial; thereby, violating his due-process rights to present a defense and to confront 

witnesses. We disagree.

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. 

People v Herndon, 246 Mich App 371, 406; 633 NW2d 376 (2001). “An abuse of discretion 
-2-

occurs when the trial court’s decision falls outside the range of principled outcomes.” People v 

Olney, 327 Mich App 319, 325; 933 NW2d 744 (2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“A trial court also necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” People v AlShara, 311 Mich App 560, 566; 876 NW2d 826 (2015). “[A] trial court’s decision on a close 

evidentiary question ordinarily cannot be an abuse of discretion.” People v Cameron, 291 Mich 

App 599, 608; 806 NW2d 371 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Constitutional 

questions, such as whether a defendant was denied the right to present a defense and the right to 

confrontation, are reviewed de novo. People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 579; 640 NW2d 246 

(2002); People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 247; 749 NW2d 272 (2008). 

B. LAW AND ANALYSIS

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that criminal defendants 

be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. US Const, Am XIV; 

Const 1963, art 1, §§ 13, 17, 20; People v Hayes, 421 Mich 271, 278-279; 364 NW2d 635 (1984). 

And the Sixth Amendment guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy 

the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” US Const, Am VI. “[N]either the 

Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, nor due process, confers on a defendant an unlimited 

right to admit all relevant evidence or cross-examine on any subject.” People v Hackett, 421 Mich 

338, 347; 365 NW2d 120 (1984). “The defendant must still comply with established rules of 

procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of 

guilt and innocence.” People v Solloway, 316 Mich App 174, 198; 891 NW2d 255 (2016)

(quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the right to present a defense and confront 

witnesses extends only to relevant and admissible evidence. Id.; Hackett, 421 Mich at 354.

Only relevant evidence is admissible at trial. People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 114; 

631 NW2d 67 (2001). Relevant evidence is defined as “evidence having any tendency to make 

the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable 

or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” MRE 401. But even relevant evidence 

“may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair 

prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, 

waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” MRE 403. The probative value 

of a witness’s testimony is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice where the witness 

“comment[s] or provide[s] an opinion on the credibility of another person while testifying at trial.” 

People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 349; 835 NW2d 319 (2013). In People v Douglas, 496 Mich 557, 

583; 852 NW2d 587 (2014), our Supreme Court determined a CPS investigator’s testimony lacked 

probative value because it suggested the abuse allegations against the defendant were 

substantiated. The Court opined that these statements improperly lent credibility to the 

complainant’s allegations and, therefore, these statements should have been excluded at trial. Id. 

at 585. 

In this case, the prosecution moved in limine to exclude the testimony of a CPS 

investigator, who purportedly would have testified that CPS closed its investigation of defendant 

due to lack of evidence of abuse or neglect. The trial court granted the motion, finding this 

testimony lacked probative value. Specifically, the trial court stated that “witnesses are not 

allowed to express opinions about the credibility of other witnesses” and therefore, “it would be 

inappropriate to introduce evidence that C-P-S [sic] agents, in essence, determine the complainant 
-3-

was being untruthful.” As in Douglas, the investigator’s testimony regarding the final disposition 

of the CPS investigation could be viewed as improperly supporting or challenging the credibility 

of another person. Douglas, 496 Mich 557 at 58. Thus, the trial court’s decision to exclude the 

testimony of the CPS investigator was not an abuse of discretion and, therefore, defendant’s due 

process rights and right to present a defense were not violated.

III. PROSECUTORIAL ERROR1

Defendant argues that the prosecution’s referral to the complaining witness as a victim 

during opening statement constituted prosecutorial error. Defendant also claims the prosecution 

erred by moving to exclude the testimony of the CPS investigator. We disagree.

A. PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

“To preserve a claim of prosecutorial error, a defendant must timely and specifically 

challenge the prosecutor’s statements or conduct.” People v Thurmond, ___ Mich App ___, ___ 

n 6; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 361302); slip op at 9. Defendant did not object to the 

prosecutor’s conduct in the trial court on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct; therefore, 

defendant’s claims of prosecutorial error are not preserved. Similarly, defendant did not allege 

prosecutorial error when the prosecutor moved to exclude the testimony of the CPS investigator. 

Unpreserved claims of prosecutorial error are reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights. 

People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265, 274; 662 NW2d 836 (2003). “Reversal . . . is warranted 

only when a plain error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously 

affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Id. at 274-275 

(footnote omitted).

B. LAW AND ANALYSIS

The test for a claim of prosecutorial error is whether the alleged error deprived defendant 

of a fair trial. People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 588; 831 NW2d 243 (2013). The defendant 

bears the burden of demonstrating that the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. People v 

Brown, 279 Mich App 116, 134; 755 NW2d 664 (2008). An unpreserved claim of prosecutorial 

misconduct only warrants relief if the prejudicial effect was so great that it could not have been 

cured by an appropriate instruction at trial. People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 687; 521 NW2d 

557 (1994).

Defendant argues the prosecutor committed error by using the term “the victim” when 

referring to the complaining witness. For purposes of CSC offenses, “victim” is defined as “the 

 

1 Defendant uses the phrase “prosecutorial misconduct.” “Although ‘prosecutorial misconduct’ is 

a commonly accepted term of art in criminal appeals, it is a misnomer when referring to allegations 

that do not involve violations of the rules of professional conduct or illegal activity. Less egregious 

conduct involving inadvertent or technical error is should be deemed ‘prosecutorial error.’ ” 

People v Thurmond, ___ Mich App ___, ___ n 6; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 361302); 

slip op at 9. Because defendant does not allege any illegality or violation of the rules of 

professional conduct, we refer to defendant’s allegations as “prosecutorial error.”
-4-

person alleging to have been subjected to criminal sexual conduct.” MCL 750.520a. Because JM 

was the person who alleged “to have been subjected to criminal sexual conduct,” the prosecutor’s 

use of the term “the victim” in reference to JM was not erroneous.

Defendant also asserts a claim of prosecutorial error regarding the prosecutor’s motion in 

limine to exclude the testimony of the CPS investigator. Defendant claims that the prosecutor was 

motivated by her pursuit of a successful conviction rather than truth and justice. Indeed, it is the 

role of the prosecutor to seek justice, and not merely to procure convictions. People v Jones, 468 

Mich 345, 354; 662 NW2d 376 (2003). However, “prosecutorial [error] cannot be predicated on 

good-faith efforts to admit evidence,” or, in this case, exclude evidence. People v Noble, 238 Mich 

App 647, 660; 608 NW2d 123 (1999). A review of the record reveals that the prosecution’s request 

to exclude the evidence and the trial court’s subsequent decision to grant the prosecution’s motion 

was proper and supported by the law. Therefore, defendant failed to demonstrate bad faith on the 

part of the prosecution or that he was prejudiced by the exclusion of the evidence. See id. at 661.

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael J. Kelly 

/s/ Jane E. Markey 

/s/ Thomas C. Cameron